the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology
- This topic has 410 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just a simple question. I know Marx said 'that he was no marxist' and wanted nothing to do with people calling themselves marxist and I would like to know what the major differences are between these two idieologies. thx
WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE xD
The first thing that we must do is to define what ideology is, and the second one is , what do you meaning by original communist theory ?
i just want a simple inquery of what makes marxists fundementally different from communists(or whatever spgb identifies itself as)
Capitalist Pig wrote:I know Marx said 'that he was no marxist' and wanted nothing to do with people calling themselves marxistThe first part is true insofar as Marx was reported as saying that he wasn't a Marxist but the second is not, i.e. it is not true that Marx wanted nothing to do with people calling themselves Marxists. After all, they were people who were sympathetic to his point of view, so he was in effect telling them not to use the term. The term was in fact invented by Marx's opponents in the First International in the 1870s to describe those who took Marx's side. They, in turn, dubbed their opponents "Bakuninists".Eventually, after Marx's death, socialists who accepted his analysis of capitalism, his theory of history and his advocacy of political action to achieve socialism accepted the term and began to call themselves Marxists. And it stuck. Unfortunately, there are Marxists and Marxists (or even Marxists and "Marxists").I think it safe to say that Marx would have wanted nothing to do with "Marxism" as the ideology of state capitalist regimes, past, present and future (Russia, China, Trotskyists, etc) as regimes which maintain minority rule, wage-labour, production for sale..
The SPGB idientifies itself as influenced by the writings of Marx, not the pre-Marxian communists like Fourier, Saint-Simon etc. The difference is Marxists are scientific socialists and Pre-Marxian socialists were utopians.
jondwhite wrote:The difference is Marxists are scientific socialists and Pre-Marxian socialists were utopians.This is an ideological statement, which suggests there are only two alternatives, 'science' and 'utopia'.This is part of an Engelsian reading of Marx, and is disputed by those who think that Marx took from both strands, and produced a third alternative, 'social theory and practice', within which parts of both elements are represented.The SPGB do not recognise this view, and follow, just like the Leninists, the mistaken reading of Engels. This mistake was made well before the founding of the SPGB in 1904, and so the error was already present, prior to Lenin's mauling of even Engels' version of Marx's original and revolutionary ideas.
jondwhite wrote:Welcome back LBird!Hmmmm… it has more of a feel of a dog returning to its own vomit.I feel compelled to comment upon the error of telling workers, in answer to their new questions, the same old guff that Engels produced, about 'rocks talking to us'.It's elitist claptrap, that Engels couldn't recognise because he knew sod-all about philosophy, and will keep us in the 'Marxist' dead-end that Marx himself recognised, with his famous comment, which the OP mentioned.Are we all baulking at the stench of vomit, yet?
Yes definitely feeling nauseous, might be your comments, might be the gallon of Newcastle Brown and the kebab I consumed last evening, hard to tell really.welcome back anyway
ALB wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:I know Marx said 'that he was no marxist' and wanted nothing to do with people calling themselves marxistThe first part is true insofar as Marx was reported as saying that he wasn't a Marxist but the second is not, i.e. it is not true that Marx wanted nothing to do with people calling themselves Marxists. After all, they were people who were sympathetic to his point of view, so he was in effect telling them not to use the term. The term was in fact invented by Marx's opponents in the First International in the 1870s to describe those who took Marx's side. They, in turn, dubbed their opponents "Bakuninists".Eventually, after Marx's death, socialists who accepted his analysis of capitalism, his theory of history and his advocacy of political action to achieve socialism accepted the term and began to call themselves Marxists. And it stuck. Unfortunately, there are Marxists and Marxists (or even Marxists and "Marxists").I think it safe to say that Marx would have wanted nothing to do with "Marxism" as the ideology of state capitalist regimes, past, present and future (Russia, China, Trotskyists, etc) as regimes which maintain minority rule, wage-labour, production for sale..
The term was also used by Engels, and Engels was the one who defined ideology as false conscience, although both in the German Ideology defined it as the prevaling ideas of the ruling class in a class society . I think the definition of ideology has been distorted because socialism is not an ideology according to their definition
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Yes definitely feeling nauseous, might be your comments, might be the gallon of Newcastle Brown and the kebab I consumed last evening, hard to tell really.[my bold]'Consumed'? Surely, as a 'materialist', it was 'listened to'?
Tim Kilgallon wrote:welcome back anywayThanks.And don't believe everything that your spew says to you! Or what SPEW says, though I can guarantee that both forms of spew say the same thing.The sooner we Communists stop telling workers to follow the instruction of 'matter', the better. The class conscious ones already know that 'matter' doesn't talk, and know that those who claim to know what 'matter says' are either deluded or liars.Personally, I think that the SPGB is the former, and the Leninists are the latter. Perhaps that's why I continue to try to discuss it with youse, whereas I don't bother with SPEW.
ALB wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:I know Marx said 'that he was no marxist' and wanted nothing to do with people calling themselves marxistThe first part is true insofar as Marx was reported as saying that he wasn't a Marxist but the second is not, i.e. it is not true that Marx wanted nothing to do with people calling themselves Marxists. After all, they were people who were sympathetic to his point of view, so he was in effect telling them not to use the term. The term was in fact invented by Marx's opponents in the First International in the 1870s to describe those who took Marx's side. They, in turn, dubbed their opponents "Bakuninists".Eventually, after Marx's death, socialists who accepted his analysis of capitalism, his theory of history and his advocacy of political action to achieve socialism accepted the term and began to call themselves Marxists. And it stuck. Unfortunately, there are Marxists and Marxists (or even Marxists and "Marxists").I think it safe to say that Marx would have wanted nothing to do with "Marxism" as the ideology of state capitalist regimes, past, present and future (Russia, China, Trotskyists, etc) as regimes which maintain minority rule, wage-labour, production for sale..
Engels used the term Marxists and Marxism too, and he was the one who defined ideology as false consciousness
mcolome1 wrote:The term was also used by Engels, and Engels was the one who defined ideology as false conscience, although both in the German Ideology defined it as the prevaling ideas of the ruling class in a class society . I think the definition of ideology has been distorted because socialism is not an ideology according to their definitionThe point is, 'ideology' is 'ideas as a structure'.Perhaps Charlie and Fred did use it to mean 'the prevailing ideas of the ruling class', but that shouldn't stop us using it to also refer to 'the countervailing ideas of the exploited class'.That is, we're engaged in a class struggle, in part about ideologies.I suspect, however, that 'materialists' will disagree with this, because they have a faith that 'our ideas' are 'True' in an absolute sense, rather than 'our truths', that we create and can thus change.Short answer: 'socialism' is an ideology. Our ideology.
Capitalist Pig wrote:i just want a simple inquery of what makes marxists fundementally different from communists(or whatever spgb identifies itself as)Good question.From the point of view of socialists in the SPGB/WSM, socialism and communism are the same thing. Marxism as a term, as ALB pointed out was adopted by socialists who agreed with his theory. Always a mistake in my view to label yourself based on a person. It just confuses things and makes it about personalities. I suspect Marx knew this.So an answer from my point of view, as to what is the difference between a Marxist and a communist/socialist. A self professed Marxist is a fool for deliberately walking into the quagmire of misdirection. Whereas a communist/socialist in the vein of the SPGB/WSM keeps the focus on the concept.
SocialistPunk wrote:Whereas a communist/socialist in the vein of the SPGB/WSM keeps the focus on the concept.[my bold]This is not true, SP.The SPGB adhers to 'materialism', not 'concept'.'Concepts' can be changed, and in a socialist society, being democratic, can be voted upon.We've heard many times here, from you too, I think, that workers in a society looking to the SPGB's concepts will not be allowed to vote on 'truth'.'Materialists' insist that 'Truth' is 'out there', existing as it is, and is 'discovered' by 'science', by 'expert scientists' employing a 'special method', which is not available to workers.Marxists insist that only the direct producers, employing the method of democratic theory and practice, can create their own 'truth', for their own purposes and interests.Since the 'materialists' do not have access to 'Truth', they are forced to build upon their own purposes and interests, which workers are not allowed to vote against, and they pretend to workers that the 'materialists' are not doing this.'Materialism' is the conceptual basis for elitism, which is why the Leninists favour it.Why the SPGB follows this philosophical line, I'll never know.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.